Examples

This story is apparently not made up, although I am not yet convinced that we are getting the straight story from the media – after all, the widely reported three-headed British frog of 2004 was, after vigorous discussion, decided to most likely merely be multiple amplexus, inexpertly observed, on one Evolution/Creationism forum see also “Three-headed frog – not!” for the apparently definitive analysis.

Over thousands of years, people have rediscovered this approach, so it goes by various names: angelic dual cultivation, le jazer (cortezia), karezza, the reserved embrace (amplexus reservatus), and so forth.

Credit to the The Independent for, so far, being the only one to introduce a sceptical note, quoting John Wilkinson, a frog ecologist who - while, I suspect, hedging his bets - also mentioned the possibility of multiple amplexus (and spotted the problem of the colour difference).

There's a Wordie entry for hen's teeth. Why shouldn't there be one for frog penises? As to whether they exist--depends on the definition of penis.

Tailed frogs of the genus Ascaphus have a tail-like structure that serves as an intromittent organ (see copulexus). The structure has been called a false penis or an evolutionary forerunner of the penis. Although not homologous to the mammalian penis, an anatomical description of the "tail" indicates that it has spongiose tissue capable of filling with blood and has a hole at the tip. Sound like a penis to me.

Ascaphus is not the only kind of frog with internal fertilization. A few other, such as Eleutherodactylus press the cloacal openings together to transfer sperm to the female.

Mollusque, in reading over this highly entertaining page yet again, I noticed that your comment actually reads "almost all frogs and toads lack penises" (emphasis mine). Now... could you elaborate on that? Should there, in fact, be an entry on Wordie for frog penises?